Gasland (2010)

This is just a scare tactic for our less minded drones in MURICA and its working, Josh Fox if your reading this you're stupid read between the lines man ,.!.. ..!., I wonder who is paying you to promote ban Fracking in MURICA, "Russia" comes to mind, I wish I could give it -100 rating but I can't only 1 Bummer!! HEY Josh Fox Do you know you're killing off our farmers by banning fracking, how do you sleep at night knowing gas company that make shell gas can save farmers by leasing their land to them.If you want the other side of the story go watch FrackNation (2013) Documentary, nothing is wrong with fracking at all, WE NEED SHELL GAS IN MURICA know the facts before you agree to Josh Fox and his BULLS$%#! We need Gas Company supporting our FARMERS some are on the brink of closing down!!!This probably isn't going to get post if it does GOOD ON YA IMDb TY!

This movie is almost completely inaccurate. It makes fracking seem like an environmental nightmare, which it absolutely is not. Josh Fox cherry picked every piece of data the movie is based on. Almost every scientific claim made here was proved false upon further investigation.In the flaming water scene, for instance, those people have had naturally occurring methane in their water for decades. It's a well known phenomenon seen all over the world. All air and water quality studies in Dimock have shown that their air and water is completely fine.Everything about Dish, Texas was also fabricated. The woman who conducted the studies about the air and water quality was later shown to have blatantly lied about her qualifications, and to have fabricated numerous other studies. All follow up research conducted by the Texas EPA or US EPA found no significant difference in air and water quality from anywhere else in the country.The list goes on and on. This movie is a hoax to get people stirred up about an issue that's not really there.

Another bullsh*t payed for by Russian Gasprom in order to kill the competition lolWho will benefit (cui prodest) - and that is the question. In a major scope, not just our internal stupid wars on oilAnd the beneficiary is Russian gas giant.Which actually payed for the production of this "documentary"It is sad to see that people are so ready to consume any nonsense.Without even attempting to research the issue. There has been an answer to this propaganda.The movie is called ThruthlandIf you want to consider yourself objective and informed - watch it.

It's a 'game changer'. After years when America's reserves of fossil fuels have been dwindling, an enormous new source of energy has become available: shale gas. Enough exploitable natural gas - 1,000 trillion cubic feet - has been found under states like Pennsylvania to supply US needs for 45 years. In Europe, there are 200 trillion cubic feet of shale gas. No drilling in deep water, no nasty oil spewing out, and substantially lower carbon emissions than you get from burning coal. Isn't this good news all round?Apparently not. And there has been no higher-profile effort to present the good news about shale gas as a disaster than the documentary Gasland. The film starts at director Josh Fox's home in rural Pennsylvania. A gas company has offered him nearly $100,000 to drill for shale gas on his 19-acre property. That's a nice little payday for basically doing nothing. Should he take the cash?First, a quick explanation of what's different about shale gas. The existence of stores of methane thousands of feet underground locked inside rock has been known about for a long time. What hasn't existed until recent years is the means to exploit these reserves. A pipe is drilled into these gas-containing rocks, then charges are exploded along its length to open up the rock. Then, a mixture of water, sand and a small percentage of chemicals is forced into the rock to open up fissures and free the stored gas. The process is called hydraulic fracturing or 'fracking'.Yet what should be an interesting opportunity to explore some longstanding questions - like what balance we strike between the interests of a relatively small number of rural residents and those of wider society - is missed. It becomes a black-and-white tale of little people against malevolent corporations. By starting from his own situation, Fox might think he is providing human interest, but it felt more like he was saying: 'I've got this rural idyll, how dare you screw it up.' With his smug manner, I was less inclined to sympathise with Fox than fantasise about punching him.The possible problems associated with fracking represent a serious enough story without Fox reaching for hyperbole and scaremongering, but he does that anyway. By throwing up a few liberal dog-whistle ideas - like 'chemicals' and 'Dick Cheney' - Fox tries to turn problems with a new technology that need to be sorted out into a wider suggestion that 'fracking' is fundamentally unsafe. And hey, if you don't care about Fox's water, he throws in the idea that shale-gas drilling could ultimately poison the watershed that supplies New York and New Jersey's water. Scary enough for you now?It would be naive to ignore the fact that energy companies have a trillion-dollar reason to downplay problems related to shale gas. But in many respects, that's as much a consequence of Americans' bad habit of solving every problem by litigation, and a wider culture of risk aversion where anything new is treated with suspicion. In principle, fracking is a safe way of producing energy. Where companies screw up, they should learn the lessons, clean up the problem and compensate those affected.What's missing from Gasland is the equally pertinent observation that environmentalists are desperately trying to find a reason to scare people away from a cheap new source of energy that isn't renewable or zero-carbon. If shale gas takes off, as it seems to be doing, the pressure from scares about 'peak oil' and the dangers of deepwater drilling for energy won't have the same purchase in the public's mind.As one analyst wrote in the Wall Street Journal last year: 'I have been studying the energy markets for 30 years, and I am convinced that shale gas will revolutionise the industry—and change the world—in the coming decades. It will prevent the rise of any new cartels. It will alter geopolitics. And it will slow the transition to renewable energy.'For Britain, this debate is now playing out closer to home. In 2010, test drilling started in north-west England on shale gas deposits there. With supplies from the North Sea declining and dependence on gas from overseas growing, a new domestic source of gas would be welcome. Yet there have been calls by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, in a report funded by the Co-operative, to halt work on exploiting these reserves. (The Co-operative is also backing Gasland in the UK.)This seems mad, even in environmental terms. When UK carbon emissions fell in the 1990s, it wasn't because of concern about the climate, but because of the so-called 'dash to gas' as a wave of gas-fuelled power stations were built to replace coal-fired plants. Because gas contains a higher proportion of hydrogen to carbon, burning gas is regarded as 'cleaner' in climate-change terms. Encouraging gas usage would seem like a good way, therefore, of reducing carbon emissions while still getting affordable, reliable energy - something wind, solar and other renewable energy sources are failing to provide right now.Gasland has been nominated for the Oscar for best documentary, much to the gas industry's dismay. Rather like a previous winner of that award, Al Gore's global warming diatribe An Inconvenient Truth, Gasland cranks up alarmism at the expense of a balanced discussion of an important issue.